< Back | Home
Letter to the Editor
By:
Posted: 4/25/07
The Rev. Thomas Condon preached with the Bible in one hand and a fossil
in the other. Condon was the first scientific investigator to examine
the abundant fossils in eastern Oregon, and later became Oregon's first
state geologist. He trusted the evidence supporting biological
evolution, yet he was a devout Christian. This may seem odd since
science, especially evolutionary theory, is often portrayed as agnostic
or even atheistic. Condon used science was a way to understand how God
worked; not test his beliefs in God.
Intelligent Design proposes that irreducible complexities in life can
only be caused by a designer. This argument is not a recent development
nor scientifically testable.
Natural processes can be repeatedly tested with results that can be
reproduced. This is a main principle of the scientific method.
Adherence to these methods allows scientific knowledge to reach beyond
cultural borders, political ideologies and religious beliefs.
This method is praised: when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, when
new medicines are developed curing diseases, when fossils are
discovered providing us with evidence of mysterious ancient life, and
when new technologies developed for efficient communication and travel.
This method is scorned if the results conflict with one's views. Some
examples: Stable isotopic analyses from ice cores illustrate a recent
global warming trend; radioactive isotopic analyses imply the Earth is
billions of years old; and fossil evidence, examined in the context of
time, climate, ecology, geography, anatomy and genetics, suggest that
life evolved by natural selection.
The objection is not that life wasn't designed, but that the designer
is not verifiable by scientific methodology. Scientists cannot choose
when to use and not to use the scientific method to test their claims.
If scientists chose, the psychic would replace the psychologist and the
paranormal, like the "Marfa Lights," would be evidence of
extraterrestrials rather than the verified natural cause (for those who
prefer the mystery, it won't be ruined here).
ID is not a threat to science, but it clouds the public perception of what science is and what is verifiable.
Christopher Strganac, tstrgana@smu.edu
© Copyright 2007 Daily Campus